Fetal Rights & Forced Medical Treatment: Your Opinion?

Post Reply New Topic

You are suggesting that a pregnant woman has an obligation to participate in behavior that will not endanger a fetus in any manner whatsoever and that cannot be guaranteed without very strict supervision.

Such as i have seen in this showcase regarding two people from Quebec (Sherbrooke) seeking a surrogate mother (thanks to the internets for that one <.<) because the missus had a cancer after having her first child (and obviously they wanted another -.- greedy parents) and thus couldn't have her second. They went to India to have a woman there bear her eggs and her baby during the time of the woman's pregnancy.

Apparently, they get paid only 1/3rd of the whole deal (and that's if the baby comes to term, is healthy, etc.), and also, their movement seems rather restricted, as they were confined to a building with nothing more for personnal space than their own makeshift bed, a guard was posted at the front of the house to ensure none of the women would attempt to flee. Nonetheless, the women still said they were "happy" but i can't help but wonder. =/

(the whole thing is detailed in the show called "Une heure sur Terre" (roughly translated to "One hour on Earth"), last weekend's)

No.

If you are speaking from a legal context, you are quite incorrect, ruveyn, since the duty of care is well established at Common Law, and lies at the heart of the law of negligence. Unlike other torts, which are restrictive (don't assault someone, don't tresspass on their property), negligence arises from a positive duty to exercise care and prudence where inury to others is foreseable.

I spoke with personal knowledge wrt. this issue. I work in a hospital, and have been *ordered* by police officers to withdraw blood from a DUI suspect, and informed by them that he did not have the legal right to refuse.

Actually, it is. The question is whether or not a woman should be legally obliged to submit to medical care while pregnant that she would be legally free to refuse while not pregnant.



Are you suggesting that a woman should be held criminally responsible for any 'trauma' to other passengers if she should go into labor, and for possible harm to her z/e/f, for flying while pregnant?
How about someone with malignant hypertension - should they be refused air passage for fear of the 'trauma' to other passengers having to witness a full code on the airplane?

Let's extend that. Should a woman have the right to choose to give birth at home, an hour's drive from any hospital, with only a lay midwife in attendance, even though doing so puts both herself and the fetus at risk and risks causing trauma for all of the family members who would potentially have to witness a medical emergency? And before you go off on how birth is natural and problems don't occur, I've seen women with permanent brain damage from choosing this and have heard several first-hand accounts from Paramedics who have seen newborns die from this. I also have a friend who would have bled to death with her third child if she hadn't had an OR five minutes down the hall to do an emergency hysterectomy for an abruption of the placenta.

Should a woman legally be allowed to have a doctor implant her with eight embryos, and carry the entire litter to term in one gestation?

Disagreeing with someone else's medical decisions does NOT give you the right to legally force your judgment upon them, regardless of their gender or incubatory state.



You don't want to talk about abortion? Fine. If you don't extend the discussion towards abortion again, I won't either.



No one (except you) has brought up a right to murder. We were talking about abortion.

My effort to remain in focus on a given question does not include being consciously dismissive, but I do apologize for not anticipating your sense of offense. Some people wish they had never been born, some accept it as having been unavoidable, and I once heard the story of a scarred someone who was grateful to have survived an abortion. Hence, we once again can only find feelings insufficient for deciding a matter.



So that I do not foolishly assume anything here: Do you mean to suggest a possible exception only exists outside the womb?

In some cases, the conveniently available supervision ought to be enough, though. In the example of public air travel, I believe it would be technically achievable to filter out the vast majority of mid-to-late-pregnancy passengers.

So you honestly think that the daddy state should look over pregnant women's shoulders and prohibit them from flying during their third trimester?

Who - me? Nah.

I am neither saying nor suggesting any such thing.

I am only saying it is insane or ridiculous or whatever else to say it is okay to abort at will simply because a fetus is alleged to have no rights. If we are going to simply abort at will, let us please find some other justification for doing so!

Basically what you are demanding is that a fetus' rights be made equivalent to or greater than the rights of the future mother. I do not regard a fetus that may be only a few cells equivalent to a fully developed human. A potential human is no more a human than regarding that the since we all will be dead some day we are all potential corpses and must be regarded as dead bodies. Potentials are not actualities.

I am demanding nothing! Can you not read what is written?!

People want to do whatever they want to do, and I say we should all let them!

But if you or anyone else wants me to accept abortion-at-will as being okay, please just show me how it is!

You know, or maybe you do not, but I really try to avoid hype and mere rhetoric ... yet it would be nice to have someone explain why a school nurse cannot give a pregnant teen an aspirin without parental permission but a parent is not told before the same student is sent for an abortion.

Why are people so determined about killing babies and not being challenged?

You claim to not demanding fetuses be regarded as human beings yet you refer to them as babies. They are not babies. Period.

Now I'm confuzzled again. I thought it would stay intelligible.